Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeThe Brain Injury associated Visual Impairment - Impact Questionnaire (BIVI-IQ) was developed to assess the impact of post-stroke visual impairment. The development of the questionnaire used robust methods involving stroke survivors and clinicians. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the BIVI-IQ in a stroke population.MethodsStroke survivors with visual impairment were recruited from stroke units, outpatient clinics and non-healthcare settings. Participants were asked to complete questionnaire sets on three separate occasions; the BIVI-IQ at each visit with additional questionnaires at baseline and visit 2. Vision assessment and anchor questions from participants and clinicians were collected. The analysis included assessment of missing data, acceptability, Rasch model analysis, test–retest reliability, construct validity (NEI VFQ-25, EQ-5D-5L) and responsiveness to change.Results316 stroke survivors completed at least one questionnaire of the 326 recruited. Mean age was 67 years and 64% were male. Adequate fit statistics to the Rasch model were reached (χ2 = 73.12, p = 0.02) with two items removed and thresholds of two adjusted, indicating validity and unidimensionality. Excellent test–retest reliability was demonstrated (ICC = 0.905) with a 3-month interval. Construct validity was demonstrated with a strong significant correlation to the NEI VFQ-25 (r = 0.837, p < 0.01). The BIVI-IQ also demonstrated responsiveness to change with significant differences identified between groups based on participant and clinician anchor questions (X2 = 23.29, p < 0.001; X2 = 24.56, p < 0.001).ConclusionThe BIVI-IQ has been shown to be valid and practical for ‘everyday’ use by clinicians and researchers to monitor vision-related quality of life in stroke survivors with visual impairment.

To compare the views of participants from different income-status countries on outcome selection for a burn care Core Outcome Set (COS). A retrospective analysis of data collected during a two round Delphi survey to prioritise the most important outcomes in burn care research. There was considerable agreement between participants from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) across outcomes. The groups agreed on 91% of 88 outcomes in round 1 and 92% of 100 in round 2. In cases of discordance, the consensus of participants from LMICs was to include the outcome and for participants from HICs to exclude. There was also considerable agreement between the groups for the top-ten ranking outcomes. Discordance in outcome prioritisation gives an insight into the different values clinicians from LMICs place on outcomes compared to those from HICs. Limitations of the study were that outcome rankings from international patients were not available. Healthcare professionals from LMICs were not involved in the final consensus meeting. COS developers should consider the need for a COS to be global at protocol stage. Global COS should include equal representation from both LMICs and HICs at all stages of development.